1 / 35

The Muon Ionisation Cooling Experiment

The Muon Ionisation Cooling Experiment. … MICE overview and approach. Contents:. Motivation Approval and funding: status MICE apparatus: status Summary and outlook. Motivation: NF physics case. 3 sigma sensitivity. Motivation: NF concept. MICE: Engineering demonstration.

oderrick
Télécharger la présentation

The Muon Ionisation Cooling Experiment

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. The Muon Ionisation Cooling Experiment … MICE overview and approach

  2. Contents: • Motivation • Approval and funding: status • MICE apparatus: status • Summary and outlook

  3. Motivation: NF physics case 3 sigma sensitivity

  4. Motivation: NF concept MICE: Engineering demonstration

  5. Motivation: ionisation cooling Short muon lifetime requires novel technique:IONISATION COOLING • Physics reach increases with neutrino flux • Maximise stored muon intensity • Implies: • Require to capture and store as many of the ‘decay’ muons as possible Cool muon beam

  6. Motivation: cooling technique Practice Principle  Acceleration Liquid H2 • MICE: • Design, build, commission and operate a realistic section of cooling channel • Measure its performance in a variety of modes of operation and beam conditions i.e. results will allow NuFact complex to be optimised

  7. Motivation: measurement precision ~10%

  8. Approval and funding: status • Proposal: • Submitted to CCLRC and PPARC 10 January 03 • Peer review: • International Peer Review Panel (Chair Astbury):Report of IPRP 20May03: ‘strongly recommends approval of the project’ • UK: PPARC Projects Peer Review Panel:03Jun03:Recommended funding for UK contribution of £12.5M • Research Councils UK: • Allowed project to proceed to Gateway Process

  9. Approval and funding: status • CCLRC (24Oct03; J. Wood, Chief Exec.): • ‘Accepts the strong endorsement of the proposal by the Astbury panel and consequently considers the proposal to have full scientific approval’ • ‘Approves the project subject to satisfactory passage through the Gateway’ • Office of Science and Technology: • Gateway Process (UK procedure for large capital projects): • Gateway 0: ‘Business need’ – passed • Gateway 1: ‘Business case’ – passed on amber • Gateway 2/3: ‘Procurement strategy’ – goal summer/autumn 04; requires indications that international funding will be forthcoming

  10. MICE collaboration & intl fundg stat European, Japanese and US bids submitted and being defended with energy and enthusiasm Europe Louvain la Neuve, Saclay, Bari, LNF Frascati, Genova, Legnaro, Milano, Napoli, Padova, Roma III, Trieste, NIKHEF, Novosibirsk, CERN, Genève, ETH Zurich, PSI, Brunel, Edinburgh, Glasgow, Imperial College, Liverpool, Oxford, RAL, Sheffield Japan KEK, Osaka University United States of America ANL, BNL, FNAL, IIT, Chicago Enrico Fermi Inst., LBNL, UCLA, NIU, Mississippi, Riverside

  11. MICE constitution: • Has been adopted following approval: Collaboration board Chair: Dornan – acting 1 rep. per institute Spokesmen Spokesman: Blondel Deputy: Zisman (to be confirmed) Executive board Chair: Spokemn: Blondel Deputy: ZismanTech. Coor.: DrummISIS: DrummCB chair: DornanSW coor.: TorunEU: Haseroth, PalladinoJp: Kuno, YoshimuraUK: Edgecock, LongUSA: Bross, KaplanInvitation: Geer Technical board Chair: TC: DrummDeputy TC: Bross Cool. Chan.: ZismanDetectors: Bross, PalladinoSW: TorunIntegration: BlackIvanyushenkov,Safety: BaynhamEx officio: Blondel Election for CB chair in progress

  12. Apparatus: cooling channel

  13. Apparatus: instrumentation • Particle identification • Upstream:  –  separation • Time-of-flight measurement • Cherenkov • Downstream:  – e separation • Cherenkov • Electromagnetic calorimeter • Spectrometers: • Position, momentum, emittance measurement

  14. Apparatus: PId – overview Cherenkov 2 MUCAL Beam PId scintillators Cherenkov I Diffuser2 TOF1 TOF0 Proton Absorber TOF2 ISIS proton beam

  15. Apparatus: PId: Time of flight Milan • Specification: time-difference resolutn 70ps • Tasks: • TOF0 – TOF1: / separation • TOFs: measurement of muon phase w.r.t. RF • Trigger and trigger time • Principal challenges: • Rate in upstream TOFs • Time-difference resolution

  16. Apparatus: PId: ToF R&D

  17. Apparatus: PId: ToF calibn syst. Calibration: tracks in overlaps plus laser system

  18. Apparatus: PId: upstrm Cherenkov U-Mississippi • Tasks: • / separation

  19. Apparatus: PId: dnstrm Cherenkov Honeycomb gas window Aerogel • Task: • /e separation • Challenge: • Operation in fringe field of detector solenoid Louvain

  20. Apparatus: PId: dnstrm Cherenkov • Layout and magnetic shielding

  21. Apparatus: PId: MUCAL • Task: /e separation Rome III

  22. Apparatus: PId: MUCAL • Construction: 0.3 mm lead; 1 mm fibre

  23. Apparatus: spectrometers • Tasks: • Muon momentum (energy) and position (time)Resolution: better than 10% of beam spread • Emittance: fractional change in emittance to 0.1% • Principle challenge: (see A.Blondel; MuTAC03) • Pattern recognition in presence of X-ray bg

  24. Apparatus: spectrmtr: solenoid Genoa • Specification: • 4 T field, 40 cm bore • Challenges: • Many coils; one cryostat • Matching coils at each end of solenoid • Tracker services; magnetic field monitoring

  25. Apparatus: spectrmtr: tracker Baseline Fallback Scintillating fibre TPG – TPC with GEM readout • No active electronics/HV close to liquid hydrogen absorber • No copper close to RF (no pickup) • 350  fibre: 3-fold doublet; 0.35% X0 • VLPC read-out: high quantum-efficiency, high gain • Light gas (0.15% X0) • Many points per track • High precision track recn possible • Large integration time • Effect of X-rays on GEMs

  26. Apparatus: spectrmtr: tracker • Mechanical design: status Brunel, Edinburgh, FNAL, IIT, Imperial, KEK, Liverpool, Osaka, Riverside, UCLA

  27. Apparatus: spectrmtr: tracker Bulkhead connector Station connector • Optical connectors: Seven 350 m scint. fibres read out through one 1 mm clear fibre 7-fold reduction in channel count  significant cost saving

  28. Apparatus: spectrmtr: tracker • Prototype:

  29. Apparatus: spectrmtr: tracker • Prototype performance: • Most probable light yield: 10.5 – 11 p.e. • Expectation based on D0 experience ~10 p.e. • Resolution: 442 ± 4 (stat) ± 27 (syst) m • Expectation from fibre geometry: 424 – 465 m(single fibre bunch or two fibre bunch) • Efficiency: (99.7 ± 0.2)% • Poisson expectation for 10 p.e. signal 99.7% • Dead channels 0.2% (two channels) • 0.25% assumed in G4MICE simulation based on D0 experience • Planning test beam at KEK (then RAL): • Additional station – finalise fabricatn techniques • Magnetic field: verify pattern recognition and momentum measurement

  30. Apparatus: spectrmtr: tracker Test of TPG head using HARP TPC field cage Operation: with cosmics March 2004 with beamMay 2004 Bari, Legnaro, Napoli, Trieste, Geneva • Fallback: • Time-projection chamber with GEM readout

  31. Apparatus: software – G4MICE – Contributions from EU, Jp, US and UK • Beam line and MICE simulation in Geant • Presently in transition phase: • S/w required to: • meet requirmentsof componentdesign andoptimisation; • evolve into final productnframework.

  32. Summary • Substantial technical progress last year: • Beam line & infrastructure (see PD) • Experiment: • Cooling channel: • Detailed design of absorber/focus-coil assembly; cavity/coupling-coil module. • Prototyping of key components well advanced • Instrumentation: • Detailed design of particle identification system • Detailed design of spectrometer solenoid • Spectrometer instrumentation: • Baseline technology chosen (fibre) • First prototype performing to specification • Development plan well established

  33. Summary and outlook • Approval and funding: substantial progress • Scientific approval (GW 0&1 and CCLRC) • Indication of substantial funding for UK contributions, subject to successful passage through Gateway • Support & enthusiasm! Examples: • EU: Design of spectrometer solenoid • Jp: Manufacture of MICE absorber vessel • US: Substantial contributions to cooling channel • UK: Breaking into ISIS vault from MICE Hall • Near term challenges: • Indication of international commitment becoming urgent • Prepare for and pass Gateway 2&3 (‘procurement plan’): goal SUMMER/AUTUMN 2004 • MuTAC endorsement of MICE programme and US contribution and MuTAC recognition of importance of early indication that US support will in due course be forthcoming highly valuable to MICE

  34. Outlook: 2006 2007 2008

  35. Near term critical path analysis • To keep MICE on schedule 2004 – 2006 • UK: require to make beam line preparations • New internal target • Design & build stands • Purchase power supplies, test beam line elements • Purchase refrigtor for decay solenoid and commission • Install rail system, shielding etc. • Requires success at Gateway 2/3 • Which requires indications of support from US (and EU, Jp) • US responsibilities not (yet) on critical path • 1st cavity module required in 2007 • Critical issue therefore: • Early indication of US support for MICE

More Related